Speaker positioning

I find it puzzling when someone kinda argues against that logic...either because they don't know any better or because they want to believe it isn't true.
It's also often bias based on the inability to afford better. This then leads to one convincing themselves that the inexpensive tool they have is actually 'better' than the higher end version.

A classic example is the myth that the early Ibanez 'lawsuit' era Les Pauls got Ibanez sued by Gibson because they were making better guitars. Gibson got pissed and sued them. Lol

In fact, they were shit guitars. Good for a beginner but still shit. The reason they got sued was because of the 'Open Book' headstock

I have to admit my first les paul was one of these. I had fond memories and later bought one out of nostalgia. Once I was a decent player, and knowledgeable about instruments I realized what crap it was.
But when I was a kid this was better than any real Les Paul.
:D
 
Quite a discussion started from my simple comment that the OP (where is he?) had his speakers too close together!

Cyrano - if you like to sit 'further back' (than the equilateral position), then that could very well be from your room's configuration - how far apart your speakers are (and what their dispersion angles are), as well as the angle they are at and the room's treatment and reflection characteristics.
I have 3 sets of speakers on my desk. If I sit in the place that is equilateral from the JBLs (separated furthest), I can certainly hear a change in the stereo field when I switch to the speakers that are closer together.
 
Re "Omni" speakers. Many years (decades!) ago a company call "Sonab" produced some pretty pricey speakers based on the 'totally omnidirectional" concept.
They fired the tweeters at the ceiling and had reflector panels to scatter sound about the room. Hi -Fi News magazine reviewed them (before they became beardy, tweaky audiophools) and concluded that although they produced good levels and a general good quality sound, stereo imaging was jack shit!

Dave.

I've had Sonab's for a while, years ago. Nice speakers for listening, especially from a distance, but not very analytical. I've never really had a problem with stereo imaging, though. But I didn't keep them. Moved on to Bose 501's. Didn't keep those a long time either :D

Most of my remark stems from the speakers I'm using to build the 8 channel thing. These are ca. 40 years old and active. Philips MFB's. I've got 5 pairs. 532, 541, 544.

Some of these, most notably the 544 sound very different when rotated 90° (on their side). So I started measuring their directivity.

What makes these speakers special, is that they have an accelerometer on the woofer's cone. That sensor (a simple piezo) generates a correction signal. It results in a very undistorted low end for such a small box.

I use my monitors on location, as I don't have a proper (home) studio. And what makes them interesting for me, is that they seem less affected from room reflections, which is a big advantage, as I can't do much about the rooms I'm working in.

When we will be using the ambi system for theatrical performances, we'll be using other speakers, of course. Maybe Meyer Sound, or something like it. And maybe even more than eight.

I was also thinking of real omni speakers. Can't remember the brand. Was it Magnat? In the 80's? B&O is doing something like it today. Upwards firing speakers, horn loaded, concentric. A friend of mine had these Magnats and they sounded very good. Stereo imaging was very, very good and they seemed very easy to place, as long as you had a big room, allowing at least 1,5 m from the wall. A bit like my Quad ESL63's long ago.
 
Quite a discussion started from my simple comment that the OP (where is he?) had his speakers too close together!

Cyrano - if you like to sit 'further back' (than the equilateral position), then that could very well be from your room's configuration - how far apart your speakers are (and what their dispersion angles are), as well as the angle they are at and the room's treatment and reflection characteristics.
I have 3 sets of speakers on my desk. If I sit in the place that is equilateral from the JBLs (separated furthest), I can certainly hear a change in the stereo field when I switch to the speakers that are closer together.

Yes, I'm very well aware of that. But I have to provide equal imaging in almost the entire room with the ambi system, so I spent some time tinkering and thinking. That's why I find the equilareral triangle far too limiting. Even if you're the only person listening to the mix.

My idea of "good" sound is that it detaches from the speakers and comes alive in the room. It shouldn't be limited to one sweetspot.

It's also what I don't like about a lot of today's music. And that's not the music, it's the mix. Nothing natural is left. It's all very synthetic. Autotune, far too much compression. Loud, but very lifeless...
 
Yes, I'm very well aware of that. But I have to provide equal imaging in almost the entire room with the ambi system, so I spent some time tinkering and thinking. That's why I find the equilareral triangle far too limiting. Even if you're the only person listening to the mix.

So you're not even talking about "mixing"...you're talking about some kind of surround listening system. I'm not even sure what you mean by "ambi system".
Isn't that some kind of Home Theater thing...?

We're all talking about studio mixing...when you sit at the mix position and mix.
That's what the equilateral monitor setup is used for. Being able to hear the mix and the stereo imaging. If you're mixing in one of the surround formats, and then again, there is the triangle and subsequent angles and positions that are most effective for surround mixing, depending on which surround format/number of speakers you are using.
 
Equal to what?

Equal distance from the right speaker to your ears and from the left speaker to your ears.


What do you mean "monitors that have a good omni characteristic"...?
AFAIK...speakers fire in one direction (not counting the LF ports/radiators you see on some that are in the rear or side).
There may be a difference in dispersion from one model to another...but "omni" is not a characteristic I would describe a speaker with, because that implies firing in all directions pretty evenly.

"Real" omni speakers are very rare. But with some studio monitors, great care has been taken to minimise reflections and diffractions from the speaker's front panel. These are far less directional. Some speakers (horns, fi) are very directional. These should be avoided for monitor duty, imho. But with these very directional speakers, the triangle rule could be true.

Also...it's not just about turning them in or not. If you're far back from a set of speakers that are close to each other...you have minimal to no stereo spread.

Which can be resolved with a negative angle. A toe-out?

The two speakers close to each other with you further back become a mono point source to a great degree...regardless of how much you turn them in or not.

Yes. But stereo width can also be controlled. How much leakage from R to L and vice versa is there in your analog gear? Have you ever used a tool like "Stereo Tool" to control base width? And even to enlarge base width by subtracting some L from R and vice versa?

AFA the flush mounted speakers...the triangle is between them and your centered mix position.
That's what the whole Left-Right thing is about, with you in the center and back the same distance as the speaker spread. If you are in-between them on the same or close to same plane...you end up with a "hole" in the center of your image.

The main reason for flush mounting speakers in studio's is because they become far less directive. You also gain some low-end performance, so the distance to the listener becomes less important. OTOH, you can no longer mover the speakers easily, if the need arises...

Like was said earlier...the toe-in has a range, usually 20 to 45 degrees...with the 30 degree being considered by many as the optimal point to start from, and then depending on the dispersion of your speakers, you can toe them in/out within that range and still maintain a credible response from them...but ideally, you want to be sitting just inside the apex of where the speakers are aimed at. If they are toed in and pointing at your face...then you are listening to the sound of the speakers and getting their full hype...if they are pointing way to far in back of you...you're missing out on some of the information.

As I tried to explain, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Using the equilateral triangle eliminates a lot of the potential issues...and the spread of the speakers should be at a specific distance from each other (and also from you) for the best stereo imaging. If they are spread only a couple of feet apart...how do you then get "inside" the apex...and if you are further back, you're just hearing the speakers and not your mix correctly.

Did you ever try "natural" stereo recordings? Just two mics, just two speakers. No mixing. No tricks. That might just teach you that you often need to change that setup and you can't find a setup based on rule-of-thumb and your own mixes. That will not translate to the real world.

Admittedly, you don't know how the real world has set up their speakers. They might be in opposite corners of the room. Or they might be listening through headphones. But it's not your problem.

IMHO, you can only set up a true stereo system with true stereo recordings. Not with panned mixes. That will only result in a setup that works for you, and maybe you only. Problem #1 for the home recorder.

Look...you can imagine whatever "myth" you want, and you can buck the equilateral thing...but if you compare the equilateral setup with proper speaker distances to some unorthodox setup with speakers real close to each other and toed in/out to some extreme angles, you will easily hear how much better things sound with the former, and how much better you stereo image is when you sit at the correct spot inside the triangle.

I want a wide area. Not 1 sweetspot. Sound shouldn't come from speakers, audibly. It should be in the room, ideally.

AFA the links from GS...I really don't care, that place has a hard time agreeing on too many things. Look at the links I posted earlier from AES and other sources.

The other thing about the room size...well yeah, if you have a 10' x 10' room...it's pretty hard to do a 67" speaker spread and put mix position at the 38% mark...etc....but that's got nothing to do with how things should be.
Being in a small and/or bad sounding room doesn't somehow make unorthodox speaker setups valid...just because you have no other choice. So that's not an argument anyone should even make...though I see people here do it all the time. They use their limitations (whatever they are) to create a new "valid" perspective about how things should be. That's just called living in denial.

There are only two ways:

- Measure and move the speakers according to measurements.

- Listen and move the speakers according to what you hear.

Avoid dogma. Dogma doesn't take the room or the speakers into account.

Of course, if you have no time (or no ears or no measurements), you'll have to fall back onto dogma. I've had to do that too. But in this case, the OP is creating his own environment. Which can be better than a dogmatic setup, if he can

The point here is that it's not a "myth"...and yes, sometimes you have no choice but to deviate from the accepted norms...but the norms should always be the target, and not what you had to deviate to.
This link you posted uses EXACTLY the equilateral triangle setup: Surround Sound Speaker Placement | 5.1 & 7.1 Setup Guide

Anyway...here it is again, the link I posted on page 1....look at it, try it out and hear for yourself... and then do whatever want. It will only matter to your mixing.
https://www.carltatzdesign.com/acoustic-tools/the-null-positioning-ensemble.pdf

I've had a look at those. It's just a repetition of the same dogma. Use your ears and your brain...
 
Yes. But stereo width can also be controlled. How much leakage from R to L and vice versa is there in your analog gear? Have you ever used a tool like "Stereo Tool" to control base width? And even to enlarge base width by subtracting some L from R and vice versa?

You can't control it when the speakers are too close to each other (they become a mono-ish point source)...or when they are too far apart (your center phantom image falls apart and you get a "hole").


Did you ever try "natural" stereo recordings? Just two mics, just two speakers. No mixing. No tricks. That might just teach you that you often need to change that setup and you can't find a setup based on rule-of-thumb and your own mixes. That will not translate to the real world.

Yes...I record true with true stereo mic techniques for some things, and it works perfectly in the typical L/R stereo monitoring...IF you have your speakers properly positioned and you are in the optimal mix spot.
Wide horizontal dispersion is not ideal for mixing, because when you move your body L/R...you will get phasing. You want a tightly defined L/R image when mixing.
That's why turning monitors horizontally is a bad idea...it may sound "bigger/wider"...but it is less accurate than vertical positioning where the drivers are all in line, because you rarely move up/down when mixing...but we often move horizontally. You want an accurate, defined L/R stereo image when you mix.
Listening for pleasure is a different thing, and is often done much less critically and often with a lot of multitasking going on.


I want a wide area. Not 1 sweetspot. Sound shouldn't come from speakers, audibly. It should be in the room, ideally.

So again...your talking about some Home Theatre surround setup for basic listening...and not a mixing setup.
Also...the mixing for that Home Theatre listening experience actually comes from standardized surround techniques and speaker positions that follow angles and math and all that stuff.
Sure...there's always some amount of "personal preference" with everything...but it's usually all anchored in some known quantity and method.

You also have to decide...are you mixing in a stereo, L/R format...or one of the surround formats.
If you're just moving speakers around for some personal setup that only you are using...you are no longer working in any known quantity or method, and just because you like it, it doesn't make it more valid when you discuss mixing and room setups.
Frankly...after all your discussion...I still have NO idea how exactly you have anything setup or what you are using or what you are doing. You've just been talking from some vague idealistic position without providing any facts of how you have things.
Just saying..."I like things wide"...or "I like to be further back from the speakers"....provides ZERO specific info.

I've shown you what is a fairly known and well used setup for stereo speaker monitors. Heck, I recall when I was in my '20s (wow, I can still remember :D) that the "triangle" thing was in use, and how to setup up your speakers for mixing. I mean, it's not some internet "myth"...though for anyone who works purely off of internet "wisdom" with little or no real recording history behind them (like many from the younger generations), I can see how information is misinterpreted, since there's way too much re-tweeted "knowledge" getting passed around, which for many becomes their "experience" without ever actually doing it.
They just read and repost...and that stuff gets mangled.


There are only two ways:

- Measure and move the speakers according to measurements.

- Listen and move the speakers according to what you hear.

Avoid dogma. Dogma doesn't take the room or the speakers into account.

Of course, if you have no time (or no ears or no measurements), you'll have to fall back onto dogma. I've had to do that too. But in this case, the OP is creating his own environment. Which can be better than a dogmatic setup, if he can


I've had a look at those. It's just a repetition of the same dogma. Use your ears and your brain...

That is just a lot of BS...as though calling it "dogma" somehow invalidates known recording/mixing techniques and systems that conform to certain standards that will work from studio to studio and translate across multiple systems.

You wanna toss all that away for some personal ideology...that's your choice, and in many ways, in doing so, you create a "myth"...much more so than what's been studied, measured, discussed and agreed upon by the audio pros over the last 50+ years.
 
So you're not even talking about "mixing"...you're talking about some kind of surround listening system. I'm not even sure what you mean by "ambi system".
Isn't that some kind of Home Theater thing...?

Ambisonic is not surround. It's a way of recording and producing through mathematics (plugins in most cases) other takes of the sound you recorded. You start out with a Tetrasonic mic (4 capsules in a tetrahedron) and record four channels. You can, after the recording, derive an MS, XY, AB or any other stereo signal. You can also derive 5.1 surround. Or 7.1. Or a 4 channel playback format for theatrical performances. That's "first order".

"Second order" microphones are arriving on the market just now. 8 capsules. 8 channels. The same as before, but with height information.

Both second and first order can be translated into much anything you want, even for headphones. That format was once known as --forgot the English word for it, sorry--

Some examples of mics:

Sennheiser AMBEO(R) VR MIC - Microphone 3D AUDIO capture

Brahma Microphones – Versatile ambisonic recording systems

Core Sound TetraMic

Welcome | Microphones and Processors with unique surround sound capabilities. | SoundField

The last one has been taken over by Rode and has just been released in a Rode version, with Rode capsules, obviously.

Welcome | Microphones and Processors with unique surround sound capabilities. | SoundField

The first commercially available second order mic:

http://www.core-sound.com/default.php
http://soundfield.rode.com/products/dsfbmk2

And we'll soon be seeing Ambi recorders, like the Zylia:

http://www.zylia.co/purchase.html

MEMS mics might just make this technology affordable:

https://www.arkamys.com/affordable-ambisonic-microphones-are-possible/

There's even a cheap Chinese one on the market. But I can't remember the brand and I can't find it atm.

And before anyone asks: no I don't own one. Even the cheapest ones are pretty expensive. But I've experimented with mics I borrowed from a friend who's doing this professionally. And I'm building one atm. First order, 4 electret capsules to start with. There's only one problem left: calibration.

We're all talking about studio mixing...when you sit at the mix position and mix.
That's what the equilateral monitor setup is used for. Being able to hear the mix and the stereo imaging. If you're mixing in one of the surround formats, and then again, there is the triangle and subsequent angles and positions that are most effective for surround mixing, depending on which surround format/number of speakers you are using.

Can you think outside of the box, for a moment?

In Ambisonic setups, you can't always put the speakers in ideal positions. And there is no "standard setup". It's all compensated in the playback system. Some use arrays with over a hundred speakers. For first order, you need minimum four, for second order, you need more. Minimum 6, I think. But since it's all mathematically translated, you can even "mix" it down for headphones.

That's what's happening today. It is already in use, as it's not new. It's based upon the work of Michael Gerzon et al in the seventies. One outcome was quadrophonic, which died commercially because of the fact that most housewives don't want 4 speakers in their living room. And the fact that quadrophonic vinyl was far from ideal and there were three or four competing standards.

But it never went away. The math behind it continued development, in academic circles. It's used in gaming sound, in surround movie sound and in theaters, for artistic performances. And now it's being used to produce sound for virtual reality applications.

It's also used in home recording. By people who record ambiences, nature sound and by people who make electronic music.

It's also already used a lot for music recording. There already have been productions using ambisonic mics, mainly for classical music, but the final output was only stereo. You might have some CD's that have been produced with ambisonic mics, especially if you like choirs. And you've already listened to ambisonic mics when you go to the movies.

Everyone who uses Reaper, can use it today. There are several tools available, from free to expensive.

Once you start to comprehend how you can "move" sound around, you also understand what the problem is with today's mixes. Or, at least, a part of the problem. And that triangle is a small part of the problem. It pins you down in one "perfect" position. Everything outside of that position sounds less. Often far less.

Look at pictures from old studios. Studio's that produced the first stereo, which we all admire. And the engineers who invented some of the tricks we use today. There are no equilateral triangles in most cases.

I'm not saying it is The Homy Grail. But it will provide a crosspoint, enabling recordists to supply a more universal track to the sound engineer who's mixing. And it already provides a way into new formats, for gaming and VR.

Now, for what it means to the OP, who has a loss of low end on the right side because the left is near a wall...

Once you abandon the ideal triangle, you can put the desk in a skewed position, lessening the low end amplification from the left and evening out the differences. It also moves the right speaker closer to the wall, which would lift low end a bit. And then you'll notice that the sweetspot also gets bigger.

It will take time to experiment, or measure. But it can be done.
 
Ambisonic is not surround. It's a way of recording and producing through mathematics (plugins in most cases) other takes of the sound you recorded. You start out with a Tetrasonic mic (4 capsules in a tetrahedron) and record four channels. You can, after the recording, derive an MS, XY, AB or any other stereo signal. You can also derive 5.1 surround. Or 7.1. Or a 4 channel playback format for theatrical performances. That's "first order".one.

Can I just say: WTF does this have to do with the standard home recording method of one instrument/1 voice at a time? Are you recording (and mixing) this way? If so, please post examples of your mixes (stereo, please) so we can hear this miracle system ourselves.
 
Ambisonic is not surround.

....................


Can you think outside of the box, for a moment?

You're the one who's now thrown all this Ambisonics stuff and Home Theatre listening environments into the discussion... but you started off by claiming that the standard stereo mixing speaker setup that's been in use for over 50 years, is some kind of "myth".

The discussion is about standard stereo and surround monitor setups...not about Ambisonics, which probably less than 1% of studios mix with/for.
I mean...there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about alternatives to the standard stereo and surround mixing and playback options...but talking about that, in no way supports or defends your views about some "myth" claims.

You also mention the use of mathematics for recording and producing alternate takes with Ambisonics...yet you balk at the idea of mathematics when discussing standardized monitor positions for typical stereo and surround setups.

Anyway...there are no myths about stereo/surround monitor placement...and talking about Ambisonics here, is pretty pointless, as I doubt its even on anyone's radar screen.
Also...I'm not even sure you're actually doing any recording/producing with it...I think you're just talking theory at this point, which is fine, but again...has little to do with the discussion here, or the reality everyone here is currently recording and mixing under.

AFA stereo mic recording techniques...I have and do use them, including the Blumlein pair, M/S and Coincident pair. I've recorded multiple stereo miked sources as true stereo tracks for mixing.
I've always been interested in creating 3D images with basic stereo mixes...where there is height and depth along with the L/R horizontal image, and where sounds can "wrap" somewhat, rather than be just stationary mono points in the L/R plane.

The whole surround thing or your Ambisonics has little interest to me...because in the end, stereo playback is about as "involved" as most listeners want to get.
AFA Home Theatre stuff...and "feeling" the soundtracks when viewing certain kinds of "immersive" movies...meh, it's OK for some things, like SciFi and certain action movies, but frankly, I prefer the sound to be coming from the same point as the picture, and I find the overly immersive/surround stuff, while initially entertaining, quickly becomes rather distracting...almost annoying. I mean, if you really want that...go to Disneyworld.

With music...if you go hear a live performance...it's rarely coming from all directions and all that nonsense. You would have to be sitting in the middle of the performers to get that perspective, and that's not realistic....so Ambisonics or whatever type of "immersive"/surround thing you're talking about, it's kinda pointless here and not a very realistic conversation for the typical musicians and studio jockeys.
We're talking about typical stereo mixing setups and how to position your monitors.
 
How the hell do we get onto these stupid topics?
Excessive verbiage to talk about something quire simple.
Two speakers. Lol :D
 
How the hell do we get onto these stupid topics?
Excessive verbiage to talk about something quire simple.
Two speakers. Lol :D

Boredom in between creating greatness? lol!

I love a good banter. I also love fact in real world experiences. Whether that world is mine or another, at the very least we have conversation about different ways of performing, recording, blah blah.... I think it is cool, educational and entertaining.

But I am always right so you can all fuck the fuck off! LMAO!

:)

Wait, this isn't Prime Time. Hmm. Who cares..

And another :)
 
How the hell do we get onto these stupid topics?
Excessive verbiage to talk about something quire simple.
Two speakers. Lol :D

Because someone throws out a silly, unsubstantiated remark that goes against decades of science and larnin'..THEN, when pulled up on the matter, do not have the good grace to simply say "sorry, I got that wrong".

Dave.
 
You're the one who's now thrown all this Ambisonics stuff and Home Theatre listening environments into the discussion... but you started off by claiming that the standard stereo mixing speaker setup that's been in use for over 50 years, is some kind of "myth".

Sorry. You were the one who thought ambisonics were home theatre stuff. I just felt I needed to explain that. If it's not appreciated, OK.

The discussion is about standard stereo and surround monitor setups...not about Ambisonics, which probably less than 1% of studios mix with/for.
I mean...there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about alternatives to the standard stereo and surround mixing and playback options...but talking about that, in no way supports or defends your views about some "myth" claims.

It's far more than 1%. I don't know how much exactly. But apparently, you're not interested in alternatives. Besides, it was a way of explaining where the insight came from.

You also mention the use of mathematics for recording and producing alternate takes with Ambisonics...yet you balk at the idea of mathematics when discussing standardized monitor positions for typical stereo and surround setups.

I only "balk" at the idea when there is NO scientific background for it. Ambi has seen over 50 years of academic development. The holy triangle has seen NO scientific background at all. I happen to know some people who are professionally involved with acoustics. All of them start to giggle when they hear about rules like these.

There is a lot of disinformation on the net when it comes to acoustics. Some of these stem from belief, others stem from commercial interests, like selling foam for acoustic treatment.

Anyway...there are no myths about stereo/surround monitor placement...and talking about Ambisonics here, is pretty pointless, as I doubt its even on anyone's radar screen.
Also...I'm not even sure you're actually doing any recording/producing with it...I think you're just talking theory at this point, which is fine, but again...has little to do with the discussion here, or the reality everyone here is currently recording and mixing under.

I already mentioned I'm still experimenting with the setup for playback. And I'm building a mic. You, on the other hand, don't even know the difference between ambisonics and surround. Sigh...

AFA stereo mic recording techniques...I have and do use them, including the Blumlein pair, M/S and Coincident pair. I've recorded multiple stereo miked sources as true stereo tracks for mixing.
I've always been interested in creating 3D images with basic stereo mixes...where there is height and depth along with the L/R horizontal image, and where sounds can "wrap" somewhat, rather than be just stationary mono points in the L/R plane.

Why the hostile reaction to something different then?

Also, the usual stereo techniques don't have height information, as they are 2D. Even first order ambi doesn't have height info. Perhaps you mean "depth"?

Depth, in this sense, is not a true (measurable) parameter. It's what you sometimes get in a good recording. It's what I tried to explain with sound coming free from the speakers and the listener experiencing the music in the room, not "from" the speakers.

I admit it sounds a bit audio phoolery. And I don't know first hand if I will succeed in finding a method in ambisonics. But at least, I'll try it.

The whole surround thing or your Ambisonics has little interest to me...because in the end, stereo playback is about as "involved" as most listeners want to get.

Worse, the masses even listen to mono these days. Most Bluetooth speakers don't come in a pair. OTOH, some of these DSP equipped speakers seem to promise stereo (and more) from one speaker enclosure. I'm sceptical about that one, but who knows? In any case, once your recording is ambi at the input, it doesn't matter.

AFA Home Theatre stuff...and "feeling" the soundtracks when viewing certain kinds of "immersive" movies...meh, it's OK for some things, like SciFi and certain action movies, but frankly, I prefer the sound to be coming from the same point as the picture, and I find the overly immersive/surround stuff, while initially entertaining, quickly becomes rather distracting...almost annoying. I mean, if you really want that...go to Disneyworld.

Again, it's not about surround. I am a movie buff at heart, but I don't care for surround at all. I've had a surroud setup, briefly, only to find out that surround sucks most of the times. That was the start of my interest for ambi. I learned that most good surround mixes for movies came from studio's that were investing in ambisonics. The bad ones came from studio's that tried to fix it in the mix.

With music...if you go hear a live performance...it's rarely coming from all directions and all that nonsense. You would have to be sitting in the middle of the performers to get that perspective, and that's not realistic....so Ambisonics or whatever type of "immersive"/surround thing you're talking about, it's kinda pointless here and not a very realistic conversation for the typical musicians and studio jockeys.
We're talking about typical stereo mixing setups and how to position your monitors.

True. If you never look outside of rock. But there's a whole other world out there. So pull your head out of the sand.

There's also an entire world of artists experimenting with sound on stage. Admittedly, I only know of examples in Europe, Asia and Australia. None in the US, AFAIK. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough?

There are at least a dozen companies specialising in Ambisonic stage sound here in Europe. Do you think they're all Home Theatre fools?
 
EMI is good enough for me..
the 3E triangle helps get the room out of the equation, key word is "helps".. it can only do so much in a typical bedroom with no treatment.

But for a hobbyist audio enthusiast etc... the reference tracks of your favorites played over the sound system and get it where it sounds as good as possible is good enough for me. Then once thats accomplished theres a baseline to try to achieve/simulate in the hr recordings. (good luck with that :rolleyes:)

Trying to do something like make the entire room sound awesome from any location is why the pro's spend a lot of money and the 3ft triangle isnt so limited...as I see it. In a crap-bedroomdrywall stepping outside the triangle it can get worse and worse quicker. ...as the rooms so small its not far away to the corners or walls, as in a pro large room the walls and corners are further away so theres more listening space and even a couch behind the desk can be in a "sweet zone" so Aerosmith bands can lay around for hours listening too...

that Ethan drawing is for small room....kind of like a SM7b is good for a noisy room with poor acstousics the SM7b "helps" take the room out, where a 28mv sensitive mic is going to capture every noise and make your nose breath sound like theres something wrong with your sinuses...or your just out of shape and breathing loudly... '
 

Attachments

  • Mastering Room Abbey Road EMI.png
    Mastering Room Abbey Road EMI.png
    430.8 KB · Views: 0
Sorry. You were the one who thought ambisonics were home theatre stuff. I just felt I needed to explain that. If it's not appreciated, OK.



It's far more than 1%. I don't know how much exactly. But apparently, you're not interested in alternatives. Besides, it was a way of explaining where the insight came from.



I only "balk" at the idea when there is NO scientific background for it. Ambi has seen over 50 years of academic development. The holy triangle has seen NO scientific background at all. I happen to know some people who are professionally involved with acoustics. All of them start to giggle when they hear about rules like these.

There is a lot of disinformation on the net when it comes to acoustics. Some of these stem from belief, others stem from commercial interests, like selling foam for acoustic treatment.



I already mentioned I'm still experimenting with the setup for playback. And I'm building a mic. You, on the other hand, don't even know the difference between ambisonics and surround. Sigh...



Why the hostile reaction to something different then?

Also, the usual stereo techniques don't have height information, as they are 2D. Even first order ambi doesn't have height info. Perhaps you mean "depth"?

Depth, in this sense, is not a true (measurable) parameter. It's what you sometimes get in a good recording. It's what I tried to explain with sound coming free from the speakers and the listener experiencing the music in the room, not "from" the speakers.

I admit it sounds a bit audio phoolery. And I don't know first hand if I will succeed in finding a method in ambisonics. But at least, I'll try it.



Worse, the masses even listen to mono these days. Most Bluetooth speakers don't come in a pair. OTOH, some of these DSP equipped speakers seem to promise stereo (and more) from one speaker enclosure. I'm sceptical about that one, but who knows? In any case, once your recording is ambi at the input, it doesn't matter.



Again, it's not about surround. I am a movie buff at heart, but I don't care for surround at all. I've had a surroud setup, briefly, only to find out that surround sucks most of the times. That was the start of my interest for ambi. I learned that most good surround mixes for movies came from studio's that were investing in ambisonics. The bad ones came from studio's that tried to fix it in the mix.



True. If you never look outside of rock. But there's a whole other world out there. So pull your head out of the sand.

There's also an entire world of artists experimenting with sound on stage. Admittedly, I only know of examples in Europe, Asia and Australia. None in the US, AFAIK. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough?

There are at least a dozen companies specialising in Ambisonic stage sound here in Europe. Do you think they're all Home Theatre fools?


Not even going to bother replying to individual comments because this is all now going into the realm of "very stupid segues". :facepalm:

Look...Ambisonic recording or playback has NOTHING...ZERO...NADA...ZILCH...to do with the discussion here (though you've decided to toss it in for some reasons), and it explains or defends nothing about your "myth" comments.

Also...Ambisonic methods ARE about 360 degree *surround*...so stop saying it's not surround.
The fact that some people are experimenting with it for the last 50 years or whatever...has NOTHING to do with the typical recording/monitoring studio methods, which is how most music is done.
Ambisonic recording is NOT being used for typical recording...it's mostly been experimented with field recordings for creating 360 degree *surround* effects and such...and for some specialized music recording for use in specialized playback environments. No one here has that equipment to do that kind of recording, or the involved playback and decoding equipment...and no one is going to build an Ambisonic theatre...and neither are you.
We are NOT having that discussion here....in case you didn't notice at the start of the thread. :)

I'm not being "hostile"...you're just taking a simple discussion and tossing in very abstract perspectives that have no realistic use or purpose, other than to toss a smokescreen over you "myth" comments.

I mean...it's not the discussion about Ambisonic technology that is the issue...it's that this thread isn't the place for it, and because it has ZERO basis in reality for the typical home/project studio world, and I bet there's no commercial studios that are using it to record artists/bands...which is what all of us here are focused on.
Most people here are struggling with the idea of paying $500 or more for a mic...and you want to talk about tetrahedral array mics and Ambisonic coding/decoding systems into the discussion...?
Why toss something into the discussion that has little value...and more importantly, provides no answers or in any way explains your "myth" comment, which is what started all this...remember? ;)

Maybe you should post your studio setup and discuss how you actually record and mix...that might be helpful as some hands-on info...and not this very esoteric stuff.
 
EMI is good enough for me..
the 3E triangle helps get the room out of the equation, key word is "helps".. it can only do so much in a typical bedroom with no treatment.

I never said it couldn't work. Just that it isn't a rule carved in stone...

And it is especially worrysome in small rooms. In a larger room, you can pretty much do as you please.

But for a hobbyist audio enthusiast etc... the reference tracks of your favorites played over the sound system and get it where it sounds as good as possible is good enough for me. Then once thats accomplished theres a baseline to try to achieve/simulate in the hr recordings. (good luck with that :rolleyes:)

Sure. Everyone needs references. The more the better.

Trying to do something like make the entire room sound awesome from any location is why the pro's spend a lot of money and the 3ft triangle isnt so limited...as I see it. In a crap-bedroomdrywall stepping outside the triangle it can get worse and worse quicker. ...as the rooms so small its not far away to the corners or walls, as in a pro large room the walls and corners are further away so theres more listening space and even a couch behind the desk can be in a "sweet zone" so Aerosmith bands can lay around for hours listening too...

I just mentioned that, because it is what I'm trying to do atm. For me. Not what everyone should do.

Trying that just made me realise that the equilateral triangle rule could be a limit for some cases.

that Ethan drawing is for small room....kind of like a SM7b is good for a noisy room with poor acstousics the SM7b "helps" take the room out, where a 28mv sensitive mic is going to capture every noise and make your nose breath sound like theres something wrong with your sinuses...or your just out of shape and breathing loudly... '

Agreed. But isn't it funny Ethan only mentions "equilateral" just once in his "guide to acoustics"?

Besides, I also seem to think there's no equilateral triangle in that EMI pic. Have a good look! Of course, it's a bit hard to tell from a pic that's only 2D...
 
[MENTION=94267]miroslav[/MENTION]:

It was you who derailed the entire discussion about a rule. Not me. And now you decide what's appropriate for this thread?

I still haven't seen ANY proof. When I quote frome an article that is supposed to prove something, people agree that at least that one statement about nearfields is a bit strange.

So unless, you can find something that clearly proves that the equilateral triangle is the perfect position for monitors, I won't waste my time on it.

I'd like to get back to the OP, who was getting a measurement mic to try and learn something...
 
Besides, I also seem to think there's no equilateral triangle in that EMI pic. Have a good look! Of course, it's a bit hard to tell from a pic that's only 2D...

Think again. All the guy has to do is roll his chair back about 3 feet, and there it is. Really no different than how I work - I've got to roll my chair back about 1-1/2 feet for the best stereo imaging.
 
It was you who derailed the entire discussion about a rule. Not me. And now you decide what's appropriate for this thread?

:facepalm:

Go look on page 1 of this thread...where you posted this nonsense:

That equilateral triangle is very much an internet invention.

The use of equilateral triangle for positioning of speakers was around about 40-50 years before the internet became everyone's main source of "knowledge".
That's what derailed thread...and that was posted by you well before I posted anything.
My first post was in response to that nonsense.

Then you go off after that and start talking about Omni speakers...and then later Ambisonic systems and tetrahedral array microphones...which is of zero...ZERO use to the OP and the question of how to position his monitors.
Talk about "derailing" a thread.

I still haven't seen ANY proof.

I posted the diagram for the equilateral speaker layout from Carl Tatz Design...who happens to be one of the top level studio designers and acousticians.
I posted links to articles from the Audio Engineering Society and other sources.
Others also posted info.

You dismissed it and called it "dogma" that shouldn't be blindly followed or something. :rolleyes:

Who the heck are you to throw doubt on these sources???
Every time someone has posted something...you're either not satisfied or you dismiss it as insignificant dogma that we are blindly following.
I mean really...you talk about the studios that you've set up or treated or whatever...how about posting a couple of pics of these places and the monitor setups that you've done, your way, that doesn't follow the "dogma"?
I would really like to see that..so show us your proof.
 
Back
Top